635 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Letting the Chantry be completely destroyed is one of the worst decisions the Inquisitor could make considering they are "saving the world from itself". The Chantry is the thing that keeps all the nations united rather than tearing each other apart in constant war. You remove it, and the chaos in the world will increase exponentially.

[BlueMagitek]

Should we allow one of the few international organizations Thedas has be destroyed?

 

Should we allow the one international organization that ultimately espouses better treatment for its members be destroyed?

 

Should we allow one of the few racially blind international organizations to be destroyed (the Chantry will accept you, Mage, Human, Elf, Dwarf, Qunari, Dragon-blooded)?

 

People keep talking about limiting its power, but it was one of the few things that managed to band Thedas together against the Qunari, for one, neverminding keeping mages from joining / adding to the horrors of war by means of enforcing a completely nation-neutral Circle system.

 

Yes yes, Orlais, tint, so on, so on.

[LobselVith8]

How about the "Not picking any devil and taking my chances" option?

 

It won't be pretty or clean, but that's Thedas' best bet at the moment. Any devil is still out to screw you regardless of if you know them or not.

 

I'd certainly hope there are options in how the protagonist chooses to deal with the Chantry of Andraste. Given how some people dislike the organization over it's historical and current actions, I don't think anyone should be railroaded into helping them.

[BlueMagitek]

I'd certainly hope there are options in how the protagonist chooses to deal with the Chantry of Andraste. Given how some people dislike the organization over it's historical and current actions, I don't think anyone should be railroaded into helping them.

 

Yeah, that's why I let Ferelden burn. 

[LobselVith8]

Yeah, that's why I let Ferelden burn. 

 

Origins was about saving Ferelden from the Fifth Blight; Inquisition isn't about saving the Andrastian Chantry. In fact, we've heard the developers stress that the organization is separate from the Chantry, to the point where Laidlaw said the player isn't a "puppet of the church", and Darrah said the Inquisition exists "in opposition to the Chantry".

[BlueMagitek]

Origins was about saving Ferelden from the Fifth Blight; Inquisition isn't about saving the Andrastian Chantry. In fact, we've heard the developers stress that the organization is separate from the Chantry, to the point where Laidlaw said the player isn't a "puppet of the church", and Darrah said the Inquisition exists "in opposition to the Chantry".

Listen, we were railroaded into saving those filthy human mongrels.  Look at all the potential converts that those good for nothing Andrastians have access too now!  We even entered into what may have been a proof of some divinity - don't worry, I covered that up by killing all the filthy humans who knew about the Urn and defiling their sacred artifact that millions of those dirty, horrible humans look to for salvation - ha!

 

Also, DA 2, what was up with assisting an Andrastian city?  Thanks Hawke, way to go there; I could only support Merrill's experiments and Ander's transformation which could hopefully bring the Fade in to get rid of all those humans.

[A Clever Name]

That may be the case, but the fact that we don't know what's beyond the mountains indicates that the Dalish haven't made any attempt to find out... in 700 years.  After the first 300 years, it should have been obvious that hanging around on the outskirts of civilization, and even going so far as to randomly attack humans in the case of the more violent clans, wasn't solving anything.  400 years after that, I have to wonder what's keeping them in the woodlands of nations that they hold such animosity towards.  If they fear the Chantry sending Templars for their mages, that's even more of a reason to leave rather than prolong the situation by staying within the borders of nations where they are outlaws by definition.  Even though I can sympathize with the Dalish, they need to come up with a better strategy if they are going to survive.  Attacking humans out of "necessity" is just going to ensure that the hostility between these two groups lingers.

 

I'm not the biggest fan of the grey morality argument.  There's a such thing as right and wrong in my eyes, no matter what explanations a person comes up with to justify certain actions.  I hope you'll excuse my choice of words, but once the Dalish have exhausted all possibilities and come to the conclusion that banditry is the only means of survival, then they will have "earned the right" to be considered victims.  Then their actions might be considered justified rather than spiteful, hateful, and petty.

 

I also don't understand your dispute over the term "victim," when that is clearly the cornerstone of their argument with the humans... but you're right, this is off-topic so I'll just leave it at that I guess.  I wouldn't even be talking about this had someone not tried to argue that the Dalish are only dangerous when provoked.  This is simply false, regardless of what else I may think of them.

 

Agreed, although I have my doubts about any of this mattering in the end...

Putting this reply under a spoiler cut because it's rather lengthy (aside from the obvious OT-ness).

 

Spoiler

Well, we don't have numbers on how many clans have resorted to banditry or how lucrative this means of subsistence is, so I can't exactly tell you why it is that they would do this or even think to endanger their clans by doing so.  I'm certain some of those guesses would be cushioned by people who go by word of mouth.  The truth of the matter is that we've been told most clans avoid contact with humans because it's not worth the trouble it brings, so I remain skeptical about the height of these attacks, although I do not deny that they unfortunately have happened.  Nomadism is difficult for people to understand in an increasingly sedentary world state, and particularly so for forced nomadism - but I consider this nothing in the face of ethnic nationalism.

 

What can I say?  People cling to the land - in many forms of romantic nationalism you see a trend that ethnic groups were born of the soil, and one day they will reclaim it from those that have done them harm in some way (Israel, Russia, Germany, etc.).  It's difficult for, say, Americans to grasp this concept because there is no such idea of ethnic nationalism (which I am told by my Ukrainian friend I should be infinitely grateful for).  It's all civic nationalism, which trends on a less fanatical direction and is tied to participation within the state, rather than the nation.  Thedas is made almost entirely of romantic nationalist states, excepting perhaps the Free Marches.  The Dalish are without land and this is not something many are in a place to understand.  I wouldn't say that nomadic societies like the Dalish are likely to thrive, but they certainly won't go extinct the way the writers seem to be implying.  Were that the case then we wouldn't have peoples like the Tuareg or Romani still running about.  And yes, attacking humans will not fix any of the tension between the two, but it's one thing to say this and another to actively change the minds of more radical sentimentalists.   Convincing people to let go of old wounds is never easy.  In my experience telling proud people to get off their high-horses doesn't go well - it takes gentle coaxing and soft voices, respect for their ways and level-headedness if they happen to be particularly vicious.

 

That's your opinion, and while I disagree with it I am willing to respect it.  Consider that I have a heavy background in international relations.  I look at most actors as amoral before attempting to apply anything close to "right" or "wrong."  How I feel doesn't matter, in the long run - what matters is the how, the why and the what happened.  Academics aside I do find things morally repugnant, but that's not what I take issue with.

 

My argument there is that no one wants to be considered a victim, and particularly so for those that carry so much pride in their independence.  I admit it's likely colored by my own background, having grown up on a reservation, but I see a lot of similarities with what I experienced in my childhood.  To me the Dalish are very similar to the way First Nations operate - they don't want hand-outs, they don't want to be dependent on a higher power, they simply wish to be self-sufficient.  It's not a "right" to become a victim.  It's not a place anyone logically wants to be in.  Perhaps they consider themselves victims of prejudice, but they do not actively say "we are the victims here," they say "we will not be victims again."  --  "We are the last of the Elvhenan, and never again shall we submit."

 

Overall I just hate people using the "victim" argument like it's some great right to be earned.  It isn't.  And I think if more people stepped back and thought about what it implies for those people they would understand why it is that people like myself detest such a label.  You should never earn such a thing.  What did I do to deserve such a pretty title?  Suffer years of enslavement?  Or perhaps I lived through a campaign that sought to destroy me based on my religion?  That's not a life anyone would want to live, and it certainly isn't compatible with the Dalish dogma, the absolute refusal to become a victim of human lordship once more.

 

And yes, it's important to note that talking in certainties with the Dalish is pointless, given how the clans have suffered some dichotomous growth and divergent lifestyles.  Some indeed will not attack unless threatened, but the very fact that some Dalish subsist through banditry should tell us that not all are "only dangerous when provoked."

 

If you'd like to continue this debate with me, Icy, I'm always open to carrying this over to PM.  I'd just hate to get OP's thread locked by derailing it.  D:

[GalacticDonuts]

I apply a "The Devil you know" attitude to the Chantry. Ultimately it's better for them to be here rather than the Qunari or some other religion that's even worse than how the Chantry's acted in the setting so far.

^This right here. Personally I hate the Chantry, I hate the hypocrisy, I hate the "believe or you're a bad person" attitude that many of it's members have displayed, I hate it's political meddling, and most of all I hate it's views on magic. However it is a necessary evil, the Chantry is a unifying force on Thedas, the Chantry is in every non qunari country in Thedas(basically most countries), that's pretty impressive. They also provide protection during crisis and help the poor, something many nations in Thedas fail at. So no the Chantry doesn't need to fall, it needs to be reformed.

[Shadow Fox]

Y'know I do hope there's an option to completely dismantle the Chantry, destroy Orlais, give the mages sovereignty, and boot Orlais from the Dales.

 

...That all completely blow up in your face.

 

The bitching will be epic.

[Willowhugger]

Even if the Chantry is destroyed, it's not like the religion will go away.

A Fereldan Chantry isn't going to change the world versus an international one.

You'd have to kill most of Thedas to get rid of the religion.

And even then there's already one major branch faith.

[LobselVith8]

Y'know I do hope there's an option to completely dismantle the Chantry, destroy Orlais, give the mages sovereignty, and boot Orlais from the Dales.

 

...That all completely blow up in your face.

 

The bitching will be epic.

 

So you hope that things go bad for people who want to make different decisions than you?

[Willowhugger]

So you hope that things go bad for people who want to make different decisions than you?

I don't mind some of my decisions backfiring, actually.

Brother Burkel
Dagda
Not killing Ser Karras and crew
Sending Bethany to the Grey Wardens
The Mage Warden Book
The Dalish boon

Sometimes, they're fun.

[RobRam10]

Embrace the Imperial Chantry.

[dragonflight288]

Y'know I do hope there's an option to completely dismantle the Chantry, destroy Orlais, give the mages sovereignty, and boot Orlais from the Dales.

 

...That all completely blow up in your face.

 

The bitching will be epic.

 

What if people make different decisions than you and get better conequences?

[LobselVith8]

I don't mind some of my decisions backfiring, actually.

Brother Burkel
Dagda
Not killing Ser Karras and crew
Sending Bethany to the Grey Wardens
The Mage Warden Book
The Dalish boon

Sometimes, they're fun.

 

That's different than expressing the sentiment that one wants players who make different decisions than they would to have negative outcomes.

[Steelcan]

Allow me to be the first to welcome everyone to the new Dalish thread.

Get comfortable, we'll be here for a while.

I'll get the drinks and snacks

[Zelodos]

since I'm usually a dalish elf or some city elf who still believes in the old ways I don't believe in your chantry. nothing but a bunch of wretched shemlen preaching empty words

[ShadowLordXII]

Letting the Chantry be completely destroyed is one of the worst decisions the Inquisitor could make considering they are "saving the world from itself". The Chantry is the thing that keeps all the nations united rather than tearing each other apart in constant war. You remove it, and the chaos in the world will increase exponentially.

 

Chaos isn't necessarily bad. Chaos may be exactly what Thedas needs after being rigidly controlled by the hypocritical/quietly oppressive Chantry, but what will follow that chaos may be something greater. There was chaos in the Ferelden Civil War, but it lead to the election of a potentially great ruler and the emergence of the Warden; Chaos followed Andraste's death and led to the creation of the Chantry; Chaos was the bride of the first blight and that birthed the Grey Wardens; and chaos is what the Inquisition will have to work with in order to survive.

 

"Chaos is a ladder." -Littlefinger

[RobRam10]

Chaos is the only true answer.

[X Equestris]

According to which historical account? The ones written by the City Elves and the Dalish, or the one written by the Chantry of Andraste? Because there are at least two different versions about who started the war, and which side initially invaded the other.
 

 
So the elves isolated themselves from a neighbor who was conquering the rest of their neighbors. That's not really surprising. According to Genitivi's History of the Chantry, Part 4, "There were many converts, including powerful people in the Imperium and in the city-states of what is now Orlais. Such was the power of the Maker's word that the young King Drakon undertook a series of Exalted Marches meant to unite the city-states and create an empire solely dedicated to the Maker's will. The Orlesian Empire became the seat of the Chantry's power, the Grand Cathedral in Val Royeaux the source of the movement that birthed the organized Chantry as we know it today."
 
There's also the fact that Drakon's issues with the Dales prevented him from conquering the Free Marches, which is why he turned to using missionaries to spread the word of the Chantry. According to the timeline, "Having conquered several neighboring city-states and forcing the submission of others to his overlordship, Kordillus Drakon is crowned in Val Royeaux as emperor. His ambitions to spread farther north into the Free Marches are confounded by constant pressures from the Dales to the east, so Emperor Drakon formalizes the Maker’s cult into the Chantry and commands that missionaries be sent forth into the other lands." Clearly, the Dales faced problems from Orlais during Drakon's reign, so I can see why the elves wanted nothing to do with the Orlesian Empire.
 

 
Well, the Dalish claim the Chantry invaded the Dales because the elves wouldn't convert (which is also what the elven Warden can verbally condemn the Chantry for), so retaliating against a conquering foe would put the actions of the elves in an entirely different light than what you're suggesting. Context matters.

The issue here is that we have no unbiased accounts from the time period. Every party involved, the Dalish, the Chantry, Orlais, has plenty of reasons to fudge the truth a little to make themselves look better. The truth is likely a combination of all accounts. We know the war started around the time of the attack on Red Crossing. It is very likely that the Chantry did have missionaries in the Dales.

The fact that the Dalish version of events says they kicked the missionaries out makes me wonder how effective they were at winning converts. After all, why kick them out and risk an incident with your powerful neighbor if they aren't even winning converts? Context may matter, but we have a severe lack of unbiased context here.

[Steelcan]

Chaos is good for those who can exploit it, it is not good for the average Joe

[powerXmad]

That's different than expressing the sentiment that one wants players who make different decisions than they would to have negative outcomes.

I think your misreading what he said. He wants the option to destroy the chantry and orlais but wants it to have some negative consequence which would be a logical outcome i think. It's not that he wants other peoples choices to have a negative effect or maybe I'm misreading it

[volaticus]

I am not fond of the chantry's rule over mages and templars should become a faction that progresses to take down evil of all (like paladins) rather than just simply keep a leash on mages. As for the religion itself, I don't believe it's a harmful religion, as shown in both games there are good and bad aspects of a single religion, that's similarly to saying that the qunari should be destroyed, their "die or convert" mentality is quite abhorrent but the religion/lifestyle itself outside of the warriors appears to be relatively calm and peaceful.

[Dabrikishaw]

I think your misreading what he said. He wants the option to destroy the chantry and orlais but wants it to have some negative consequence which would be a logical outcome i think. It's not that he wants other peoples choices to have a negative effect or maybe I'm misreading it

Believe me, you're misreading it.